VIENNA — At the Nov. 22 Maries R-1 school board meeting, Superintendent Teresa Messersmith said a couple of bus drivers in the district have told her they would like to have cameras on their buses.

“We had (bus) cameras at the previous district I worked at,” Messersmith said. “There are some pros and cons to cameras. Everybody thinks cameras are going to be a magic solution — they’re not. But they do help sometimes.”

One problem Messersmith noticed at her last district was cameras not working because many buses traveled on gravel roads. The rough terrain interfered with recording. Audio problems can occur because of equipment issues or the bus being too loud to hear anything. Bus cameras are also unable to pick up all angles, so they might not capture every incident.

“Another thing that frustrates parents is that parents can’t watch those videos,” Messersmith said. “If the cameras aren’t working, the parents will get upset.”

Messersmith said though she sees cons, there are also pros to adding cameras to buses.

“If something happens on the bus, maybe we see who moved over there and who did that,” she said. “If there’s a fight that breaks out on the bus, we can witness what happened. I’m not opposed to cameras on the bus. I just don’t think they’re going to be a solve-all.”

The district contracts out bus service, so Messersmith said the district and bus drivers would need to make an agreement on who would pay start-up costs.

“In my opinion, if we are contracting out buses, that is an expense they would have, although we currently take care of the radios that they use,” she said. “We’ve bought two radios since I’ve been here because ours are getting very old.”

One of the bus drivers had suggested to Messersmith that drivers and the district should evenly split the startup costs.

“Moving forward, the maintenance, upkeep and care would be on the drivers,” Messersmith said.

Messersmith said she thinks the district should either require cameras on all buses or not allow cameras on buses.

“That would be something we would have to place in their contracts next year,” she said. “They would need to have working cameras that they maintained.”

Most other board members agreed that if the district put cameras on one bus it should put them on all buses, but board member Mike Kleffner said he disagrees if bus drivers are paying for cameras themselves.

“It would only save the bus driver if a fight broke out,” he said.

Board member Kacie James showed concern because if bus drivers own the cameras, they would also own the footage.

“Are they going to give it (footage) to us?” she asked.

Board member Matt Novak said the district could negotiate the ownership of camera footage in driver contracts.

“The issue then becomes whenever a bus driver drops out, and we invested a camera in their bus, do we have to do that now with the next bus driver who comes in with a new bus,” he said.

Kleffner asked Messersmith who would watch the cameras.

“That would be the administrators,” Messersmith said. “Bus drivers would not watch the cameras.”

Board members suggested putting security measures around the cameras to prevent anyone from tampering with memory cards.

Kleffner also asked how many miles of the district’s routes would the cameras be unable to record because of poor signals. Messersmith said the cameras would not need an internet connection because they would record locally on a memory card.

“I can tell you, there will still be times when you’d need the video, and it just won’t be there,” Messersmith said.

“Are they not allowed to have them (cameras) if it’s their bus?” Board vice-president Penny Schoene asked. “We couldn’t stop them?”

“I don’t think we could,” Messersmith replied. Board members suggested asking a lawyer to clarify.

The board did not make a decision regarding bus cameras because it was not an action item.

“I think it would be a next-year requirement,” Messersmith said. “That’s why we’re talking about it now.”

In other business:

At the October meeting, board members requested a few changes to a contract with MO Builders Service to put a new roof on the middle school. At the Nov. 22 meeting, Messersmith said the company revised the contract to meet the board’s requests.

“We’ve already signed the contract,” she said. “They said as soon as school is out for the summer, they’ll be here.”

The board discussed forming a facilities committee to make recommendations about the district’s buildings and campus. Novak expressed interest in joining the committee, and Messersmith said she had been in touch with parents, teachers and other community members who would be open to serving on the committee. Messersmith plans to gather the committee in January.

The district received one bid on a project to replace nine exterior doors and two windows for safety and aesthetic reasons. The bid was $54,800 for parts and labor.

“I personally think we should wait and see what our facilities committee prioritizes in January,” Messersmith said.

Kleffner said he thought the price was much higher than what the district has previously paid for doors.

“We need to compare to what we’ve spent on doors,” he said. “We have doors everywhere similar to what we’ve put back.”

The board tabled the discussion until the facilities committee meets in January.

The district received one bid on tuckpointing in the gym. A full tuckpointing would cost $94,700, and $53,400 would cover a partial repair. The repairs would fix a broken seal above the walls in the gym, which causes water to leak down above the trophy cases.

“If we get one leak, and that entire floor gets ruined, that’s something else we have to think about,” board member David Long said.

“When we’re throwing dollars around, when we only get one bid, I’d like to have someone tell us is that market (value) or is that crisis (value),” Schoene said. “I almost can’t stand to do a one-bid bid. It’s just hard to spend $100,000 when there’s one bid.”

Messersmith said the bid had already run twice. Novak asked if the district had any restrictions on where they could advertise the bid, and he suggested advertising in Springfield and St. Louis. Other board members agreed, and they decided to advertise the bid again.

The district received two bids for snow removal, but one was improperly completed. The winning bid went to Dominic Struemph, who offered the school top priority out of 25 customers for $400 per snow removal and an additional cost of $275 to cover the cost of salt for the year.

“If you listen to all the folktale stuff, everything indicates we’re going to have a tough winter,” Novak said.

Board members approved the hiring of Caid Stockstill as an assistant coach for the high school girls basketball team. The board also approved Jane Ann Linkman as an addition to the district’s substitute list. Messersmith said she was comfortable adding Linkman to the list because everything came back fine on her background check, and she has experience substitute teaching in Rolla.

The board accepted a letter of resignation from paraprofessional Beth Edwards. Messersmith said LaWanda Pritchett would take over Edwards’ position in the preschool, and the district will hire a paraprofessional for the elementary school to fill the position Pritchett currently holds.

Three school board seats are up for election in April. Board vice-president Penny Schoene said she will not seek reelection. Candidates must file between Dec. 6 and Dec. 27 to appear on the ballot.

“Encourage good people to step up,” Messersmith said.